2011-2012 uk core assessment: inquiry - uky.edu inquiry a… · 1 inquiry 2011-2012 2011-2012 uk...

1 Inquiry 2011-2012

2011-2012 UK Core Assessment: Inquiry Overview of Assessment

• Artifacts were gathered from the following areas offered in Fall 2011 (Appendix A): o Arts & Creativity – 11 courses with 71 total sections o Humanities – 25 courses with 117 total sections o Natural, Physical, and Mathematical Sciences – 10 courses with 63 total sections o Social Sciences – 6 courses and 105 total sections

• For each area, the faculty evaluators used an area-specific rubric (Appendix B) to complete 798 total evaluations on General Education Learning Outcome 1: Students will demonstrate an understanding of and ability to employ the processes of intellectual inquiry.

• All evaluations took place using the Blackboard Artifact Assessment process on the following days:

o Arts & Creativity – May 11, 2012 (4 faculty evaluators) o Humanities –May 10, 2012 (10 faculty evaluators) o Natural, Physical, and Mathematical Sciences – May 9, 2012 (8 faculty evaluators) o Social Sciences – May 10, 2012 (7 faculty evaluators)

2 Inquiry 2011-2012

Inquiry Scores Artifacts (student assignments) were scored using the rubric on a scale of 0-4, with 4 representing the highest level of performance and 0 being the lowest level. All accessible artifacts (those which could be opened by evaluators for scoring in Blackboard) were scored at least once. Approximately ten percent of the artifacts were distributed to multiple evaluators for additional scoring. This over-sampling was to estimate the inter-rater reliability of the evaluators. Artifacts were scored using a hybrid method which assigns both an overall score to the given artifact (holistic) as well as individual scores to particular subcategories as defines by the rubric (analytic).

This report will state the frequency of all scores, regardless of the agreement or disagreement of those artifacts that were evaluated multiple times.

Area N Overall Score Mean sd % at 2 or

better

Arts & Creativity 103 2.19 1.12 72.8

Humanities 257 2.26 1.02 76.7

Natural/ Physical/Mathematical Sciences 263 0.43 0.79 13.7

Social Sciences 175 1.56 0.85 48.0

The following charts break down area-specific scores to include the analytic scoring results.

3 Inquiry 2011-2012

Arts & Creativity (n=103)

Humanities (n=258)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 1 2 3 4

Identify dimensions of agood question (2.52)

Theses and conclusions(2.04)

Ethical Implications (1.99)

Develop potential solutions(2.36)

Overall Score (2.19)

0102030405060708090

100

0 1 2 3 4


Explore answers toquestions (2.13)


Ethical Implications (1.95)

Develop potential solutions(2.22)


4 Inquiry 2011-2012

Natural, Physical, Mathematical Sciences (n=263)

Social Sciences (n=175)

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 1 2 3 4



Explore alternativeapproaches (0.26)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 1 2 3 4


Multiple and complexanswers to questions/issues/ problems (1.72)Theses and conclusions(1.37)

Ethical implications (1.14)

Develop solutions toproblems (1.30)


5 Inquiry 2011-2012

Monitoring the Evaluation Process All evaluations took place using the Blackboard assessment system. The evaluators for each area were gathered and normed between May 9 - 11, 2012. During the norming process, evaluators read and scored a minimum of three artifacts, and were asked to discuss their rationale for evaluating these artifacts. Evaluators were deemed to be “normed” when the group came to an agreement on the overall score on each of the area-specific assignments being reviewed. Assignments that were scored twice were considered to be “in agreement” when the scores were within one point of each other.

Area Total assignments scored

Assignments scored twice

% inter-rater agreement

Arts & Creativity 103 9 77.8

Humanities 257 20 80.0

NPMS 263 47 83.0

Social Sciences 175 13 84.6

6 Inquiry 2011-2012

Evaluator Feedback After evaluations were completed, all evaluators were sent a survey using an email distribution list. The survey (Appendix C) asked evaluators to provide feedback on the assessment process, the quality of the rubric, and the quality of the students’ work. Overall, 24 out of 29 evaluators responded to the survey resulting in a response rate of 83%. Some selected responses are included below (see Appendix C) for area-specific feedback.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Very Difficult 2 3 4 Very Easy

Ease of Using Bb Outcomes to Evaluate

Arts &CreativityHumanities

NPMS

0

1

2

3

4

5

LeastEffective

2 3 4 MostEffective

Rating of Inquiry Area Outcome's Rubric

Arts & Creativity

Humanities

NPMS

Social Sciences

7 Inquiry 2011-2012

0

1

2

3

4

5

No Match AtAll

2 3 4 Very WellMatched

Matching of Assignments to Rubric

Arts & Creativity

Humanities

NPMS

Social Sciences

8 Inquiry 2011-2012

Summary of Key Findings Of the assignments collected, 72.8% of the Arts & Creativity, 76.7% of the Humanities, 13.7% of the NPMS, and 48% of the Social Sciences scored at or above a 2 rating (which is considered "competent") for the overall score. A considerable issue in this assessment cycle, especially for the NPMS and Social Science areas, was that the rubrics by which the assignments were evaluated were not available to faculty until after the collection process had concluded. By making these available well in advance to faculty in the future it should help ensure the assignments are an appropriate reflection of the outcome areas being assessed. In turn, this should improve the scores overall and ensure more congruency between assignment and rubric content. In addition, all areas evaluated were greater than 78% for inter-rater agreement indicating that the norming process was effective and there was considerable consistency between evaluators. It will be important to communicate the assessment results back to the campus community and, especially, the UK Core teaching faculty. Finally, the rubrics should be reviewed and revised, as appropriate, based on the feedback given here by the evaluators. This cycle represented the first time the rubrics have been available and utilized therefore it’s important that they evolve as necessary.

9 Inquiry 2011-2012

Appendix A – Inquiry Courses and Sections Providing Assignment Information UK CORE AREA COURSE SECTION TITLE ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-E 120 SECTION 001 PATHWAYS TO CREATIVITY IN THE VISUAL ART ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-E 120 SECTION 002 PATHWAYS TO CREATIVITY IN THE VISUAL ART ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-E 120 SECTION 003 PATHWAYS TO CREATIVITY IN THE VISUAL ART ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-E 120 SECTION 004 PATHWAYS TO CREATIVITY IN THE VISUAL ART ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-E 120 SECTION 005 PATHWAYS TO CREATIVITY IN THE VISUAL ART ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-E 120 SECTION 401 PATHWAYS TO CREATIVITY IN THE VISUAL ART ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 102 SECTION 001 TWO-DIMENSIONAL SURFACE ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 102 SECTION 002 TWO-DIMENSIONAL SURFACE ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 102 SECTION 003 TWO-DIMENSIONAL SURFACE ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 102 SECTION 004 TWO-DIMENSIONAL SURFACE ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 102 SECTION 005 TWO-DIMENSIONAL SURFACE ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 102 SECTION 401 TWO-DIMENSIONAL SURFACE ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 102 SECTION 402 TWO-DIMENSIONAL SURFACE ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 103 SECTION 001 THREE-DIMENSIONAL FORM ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 103 SECTION 002 THREE-DIMENSIONAL FORM ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 103 SECTION 401 THREE-DIMENSIONAL FORM ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 130 SECTION 001 DRAWING ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 130 SECTION 002 DRAWING ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 130 SECTION 003 DRAWING ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 130 SECTION 004 DRAWING ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 130 SECTION 005 DRAWING ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 130 SECTION 401 DRAWING ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 200 SECTION 001 DIGITAL ART SPACE TIME ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 200 SECTION 002 DIGITAL ART SPACE TIME ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 200 SECTION 003 DIGITAL ART SPACE TIME ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 200 SECTION 004 DIGITAL ART SPACE TIME ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 200 SECTION 005 DIGITAL ART SPACE TIME ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 200 SECTION 006 DIGITAL ART SPACE TIME ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 200 SECTION 007 DIGITAL ART SPACE TIME ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 200 SECTION 008 DIGITAL ART SPACE TIME ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 200 SECTION 009 DIGITAL ART SPACE TIME ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 200 SECTION 010 DIGITAL ART SPACE TIME ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 200 SECTION 401 DIGITAL ART SPACE TIME ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 200 SECTION 402 DIGITAL ART SPACE TIME

10 Inquiry 2011-2012

ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 200 SECTION 403 DIGITAL ART SPACE TIME ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 200 SECTION 404 DIGITAL ART SPACE TIME ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 200 SECTION 405 DIGITAL ART SPACE TIME ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 280 SECTION 001 INTRO PHOTOGRAPHIC LITERACY ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 280 SECTION 002 INTRO PHOTOGRAPHIC LITERACY ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 280 SECTION 003 INTRO PHOTOGRAPHIC LITERACY ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 280 SECTION 004 INTRO PHOTOGRAPHIC LITERACY ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 280 SECTION 005 INTRO PHOTOGRAPHIC LITERACY ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 280 SECTION 006 INTRO PHOTOGRAPHIC LITERACY ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 280 SECTION 007 INTRO PHOTOGRAPHIC LITERACY ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 280 SECTION 008 INTRO PHOTOGRAPHIC LITERACY ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 280 SECTION 401 INTRO PHOTOGRAPHIC LITERACY ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 280 SECTION 402 INTRO PHOTOGRAPHIC LITERACY ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 280 SECTION 403 INTRO PHOTOGRAPHIC LITERACY ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 280 SECTION 404 INTRO PHOTOGRAPHIC LITERACY ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 380 SECTION 001 PHOTOGRAPHY I ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 380 SECTION 002 PHOTOGRAPHY I ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 380 SECTION 003 PHOTOGRAPHY I ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 380 SECTION 005 PHOTOGRAPHY I ARTS AND CREATIVITY A-S 380 SECTION 401 PHOTOGRAPHY I ARTS AND CREATIVITY CME 455 SECTION 001 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING PROCESS DESIGN I ARTS AND CREATIVITY CME 455 SECTION 002 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING PROCESS DESIGN I ARTS AND CREATIVITY TA 110 SECTION 001 THEATRE: AN INTRODUCTION ARTS AND CREATIVITY TA 110 SECTION 002 THEATRE: AN INTRODUCTION ARTS AND CREATIVITY TA 110 SECTION 003 THEATRE: AN INTRODUCTION ARTS AND CREATIVITY TA 110 SECTION 004 THEATRE: AN INTRODUCTION ARTS AND CREATIVITY TA 110 SECTION 005 THEATRE: AN INTRODUCTION ARTS AND CREATIVITY TA 110 SECTION 006 THEATRE: AN INTRODUCTION ARTS AND CREATIVITY TA 110 SECTION 007 THEATRE: AN INTRODUCTION ARTS AND CREATIVITY TA 110 SECTION 008 THEATRE: AN INTRODUCTION ARTS AND CREATIVITY TA 110 SECTION 009 THEATRE: AN INTRODUCTION ARTS AND CREATIVITY TA 110 SECTION 010 THEATRE: AN INTRODUCTION ARTS AND CREATIVITY TA 110 SECTION 011 THEATRE: AN INTRODUCTION ARTS AND CREATIVITY TA 110 SECTION 012 THEATRE: AN INTRODUCTION ARTS AND CREATIVITY TA 120 SECTION 001 CREATIVITY & ART OF ACTING ARTS AND CREATIVITY TA 140 SECTION 001 INTRO TO DANCE ARTS AND CREATIVITY TA 140 SECTION 002 INTRO TO DANCE HUMANITIES AAS 264 SECTION 001 MAJOR BLACK WRITERS HUMANITIES AAS 264 SECTION 002 MAJOR BLACK WRITERS

11 Inquiry 2011-2012

HUMANITIES AAS 264 SECTION 003 MAJOR BLACK WRITERS HUMANITIES A-H 101 SECTION 001 INTRODUCTION TO VISUAL ARTS HUMANITIES A-H 105 SECTION 001 ANCIENT - MEDIEVAL ART HUMANITIES A-H 105 SECTION 002 ANCIENT - MEDIEVAL ART HUMANITIES A-H 106 SECTION 001 RENAISSANCE - MODERN ART HUMANITIES A-H 106 SECTION 002 RENAISSANCE - MODERN ART HUMANITIES A-H 106 SECTION 003 RENAISSANCE - MODERN ART HUMANITIES A-H 106 SECTION 401 RENAISSANCE - MODERN ART HUMANITIES A-H 334 SECTION 001 STDS RENAISSANCE ART: REFRAME RENSSANCE HUMANITIES ARC 314 SECTION 001 HIS & THEORY III: 20TH CENT&CONTEMPORARY HUMANITIES CLA 135 SECTION 001 GREEK/ROMAN MYTHOLOGY HUMANITIES CLA 135 SECTION 002 GREEK/ROMAN MYTHOLOGY HUMANITIES CLA 135 SECTION 003 GREEK/ROMAN MYTHOLOGY HUMANITIES CLA 135 SECTION 004 GREEK/ROMAN MYTHOLOGY HUMANITIES CLA 135 SECTION 005 GREEK/ROMAN MYTHOLOGY HUMANITIES CLA 135 SECTION 016 GREEK/ROMAN MYTHOLOGY HUMANITIES CLA 135 SECTION 017 GREEK/ROMAN MYTHOLOGY HUMANITIES CLA 135 SECTION 018 GREEK/ROMAN MYTHOLOGY HUMANITIES CLA 135 SECTION 019 GREEK/ROMAN MYTHOLOGY HUMANITIES CLA 135 SECTION 020 GREEK/ROMAN MYTHOLOGY HUMANITIES ENG 191 SECTION 001 LITERATURE AND THE ARTS OF CITIZENSHIP HUMANITIES ENG 230 SECTION 003 INTRO TO LIT HUMANITIES ENG 230 SECTION 004 INTRO TO LIT HUMANITIES ENG 230 SECTION 005 INTRO TO LIT HUMANITIES ENG 230 SECTION 006 INTRO TO LIT HUMANITIES ENG 230 SECTION 007 INTRO TO LIT HUMANITIES ENG 230 SECTION 008 INTRO TO LIT HUMANITIES ENG 230 SECTION 009 INTRO TO LIT HUMANITIES ENG 230 SECTION 010 INTRO TO LIT HUMANITIES ENG 230 SECTION 011 INTRO TO LIT HUMANITIES ENG 230 SECTION 012 INTRO TO LIT HUMANITIES ENG 230 SECTION 013 INTRO TO LIT HUMANITIES ENG 230 SECTION 014 INTRO TO LIT HUMANITIES ENG 230 SECTION 015 INTRO TO LIT HUMANITIES ENG 230 SECTION 016 INTRO TO LIT HUMANITIES ENG 234 SECTION 001 INTRO TO WOMEN'S LIT HUMANITIES ENG 234 SECTION 002 INTRO TO WOMEN'S LIT HUMANITIES ENG 234 SECTION 003 INTRO TO WOMEN'S LIT HUMANITIES ENG 264 SECTION 001 MAJOR BLACK WRITERS

12 Inquiry 2011-2012

HUMANITIES ENG 264 SECTION 002 MAJOR BLACK WRITERS HUMANITIES ENG 264 SECTION 003 MAJOR BLACK WRITERS HUMANITIES ENG 264 SECTION 401 MAJOR BLACK WRITERS HUMANITIES ENG 264 SECTION 402 MAJOR BLACK WRITERS HUMANITIES ENG 281 SECTION 001 INTRODUCTION TO FILM HUMANITIES ENG 281 SECTION 002 INTRODUCTION TO FILM HUMANITIES ENG 281 SECTION 003 INTRODUCTION TO FILM HUMANITIES ENG 281 SECTION 004 INTRODUCTION TO FILM HUMANITIES ENG 281 SECTION 401 INTRODUCTION TO FILM HUMANITIES FR 103 SECTION 001 FRENCH FILM HUMANITIES FR 103 SECTION 002 FRENCH FILM HUMANITIES FR 103 SECTION 003 FRENCH FILM HUMANITIES FR 103 SECTION 004 FRENCH FILM HUMANITIES FR 103 SECTION 005 FRENCH FILM HUMANITIES GER 105 SECTION 001 GERMAN FILM TODAY HUMANITIES GER 105 SECTION 002 GERMAN FILM TODAY HUMANITIES GER 105 SECTION 002 GERMAN FILM TODAY HUMANITIES GER 105 SECTION 003 GERMAN FILM TODAY HUMANITIES GER 105 SECTION 004 GERMAN FILM TODAY HUMANITIES GER 105 SECTION 005 GERMAN FILM TODAY HUMANITIES GWS 201 SECTION 001 INTRO GWS ARTS/ HUMANITIES HUMANITIES GWS 201 SECTION 002 INTRO GWS ARTS/ HUMANITIES HUMANITIES GWS 201 SECTION 003 INTRO GWS ARTS/ HUMANITIES HUMANITIES GWS 201 SECTION 004 INTRO GWS ARTS/ HUMANITIES HUMANITIES GWS 201 SECTION 005 INTRO GWS ARTS/ HUMANITIES HUMANITIES HIS 104 SECTION 001 HIS EUR THRU MID-17 CENT HUMANITIES HIS 104 SECTION 002 HIS EUR THRU MID-17 CENT HUMANITIES HIS 104 SECTION 003 HIS EUR THRU MID-17 CENT HUMANITIES HIS 104 SECTION 004 HIS EUR THRU MID-17 CENT HUMANITIES HIS 104 SECTION 005 HIS EUR THRU MID-17 CENT HUMANITIES HIS 104 SECTION 006 HIS EUR THRU MID-17 CENT HUMANITIES HIS 105 SECTION 001 HIS EUR MID 17 CENT-PRES HUMANITIES HIS 105 SECTION 002 HIS EUR MID 17 CENT-PRES HUMANITIES HIS 105 SECTION 003 HIS EUR MID 17 CENT-PRES HUMANITIES HIS 105 SECTION 004 HIS EUR MID 17 CENT-PRES HUMANITIES HIS 105 SECTION 005 HIS EUR MID 17 CENT-PRES HUMANITIES HIS 105 SECTION 006 HIS EUR MID 17 CENT-PRES HUMANITIES HIS 121 SECTION 001 WAR AND SOCIETY, 1914-1945 HUMANITIES HIS 121 SECTION 002 WAR AND SOCIETY, 1914-1945

13 Inquiry 2011-2012

HUMANITIES HIS 121 SECTION 003 WAR AND SOCIETY, 1914-1945 HUMANITIES HIS 121 SECTION 004 WAR AND SOCIETY, 1914-1945 HUMANITIES HIS 229 SECTION 001 ANCNT NEAR EAST/GR TO DTH ALEX THE GREAT HUMANITIES ID 162 SECTION 001 HIST & THEORY OF INT ENVIRONMENTS II HUMANITIES MCL 100 SECTION 001 THE WORLD OF LANGUAGE HUMANITIES MUS 100 SECTION 001 INTRODUCTION TO MUSIC HUMANITIES MUS 100 SECTION 002 INTRODUCTION TO MUSIC HUMANITIES MUS 100 SECTION 003 INTRODUCTION TO MUSIC HUMANITIES MUS 100 SECTION 004 INTRODUCTION TO MUSIC HUMANITIES MUS 100 SECTION 005 INTRODUCTION TO MUSIC HUMANITIES MUS 100 SECTION 006 INTRODUCTION TO MUSIC HUMANITIES MUS 100 SECTION 007 INTRODUCTION TO MUSIC HUMANITIES MUS 100 SECTION 008 INTRODUCTION TO MUSIC HUMANITIES MUS 100 SECTION 009 INTRODUCTION TO MUSIC HUMANITIES MUS 100 SECTION 201 INTRODUCTION TO MUSIC HUMANITIES MUS 100 SECTION 202 INTRODUCTION TO MUSIC HUMANITIES MUS 100 SECTION 203 INTRODUCTION TO MUSIC HUMANITIES MUS 100 SECTION 204 INTRODUCTION TO MUSIC HUMANITIES MUS 100 SECTION 208 INTRODUCTION TO MUSIC HUMANITIES MUS 100 SECTION 209 INTRODUCTION TO MUSIC HUMANITIES MUS 100 SECTION 401 INTRODUCTION TO MUSIC HUMANITIES PHI 100 SECTION 001 INTRO PHI:KNOWL/REALITY HUMANITIES PHI 100 SECTION 002 INTRO PHI:KNOWL/REALITY HUMANITIES PHI 100 SECTION 003 INTRO PHI:KNOWL/REALITY HUMANITIES PHI 100 SECTION 004 INTRO PHI:KNOWL/REALITY HUMANITIES PHI 100 SECTION 005 INTRO PHI:KNOWL/REALITY HUMANITIES PHI 100 SECTION 007 INTRO PHI:KNOWL/REALITY HUMANITIES PHI 100 SECTION 008 INTRO PHI:KNOWL/REALITY HUMANITIES PHI 100 SECTION 009 INTRO PHI:KNOWL/REALITY HUMANITIES PHI 100 SECTION 010 INTRO PHI:KNOWL/REALITY HUMANITIES RUS 125 SECTION 002 MAPPING RUSSIA: ST PETERSBURG HUMANITIES RUS 125 SECTION 003 MAPPING RUSSIA: ST PETERSBURG HUMANITIES RUS 125 SECTION 004 MAPPING RUSSIA: ST PETERSBURG HUMANITIES SPA 372 SECTION 001 SPANISH CINEMA: INTRO SPA FILM HUMANITIES SPA 372 SECTION 002 SPANISH CINEMA:INTRO TO SPA FILM HUMANITIES SPA 372 SECTION 003 SPANISH CINEMA:INTRO TO SPA FILM HUMANITIES SPA 372 SECTION 004 SPANISH CINEMA:INTRO TO SPA FILM NATURAL SCIENCES ANT 230 SECTION 001 INTRO TO PHYSICAL ANT NATURAL SCIENCES ANT 230 SECTION 002 INTRO TO PHYSICAL ANT

14 Inquiry 2011-2012

NATURAL SCIENCES ANT 230 SECTION 003 INTRO TO PHYSICAL ANT NATURAL SCIENCES BIO 102 SECTION 001 HUMAN ECOLOGY NATURAL SCIENCES BIO 103 SECTION 001 BASIC IDEAS OF BIOLOGY NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 105 SECTION 001 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 105 SECTION 002 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 105 SECTION 003 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 105 SECTION 004 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 105 SECTION 005 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 105 SECTION 006 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 105 SECTION 007 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 105 SECTION 401 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 105 SECTION CE GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 001 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 002 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 004 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 005 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 007 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 008 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 009 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 010 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 011 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 012 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 013 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 014 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 015 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 016 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 017 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 018 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 019 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 020 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 021 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 022 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 023 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 024 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 025 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 026 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 027 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 028 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 029 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I

15 Inquiry 2011-2012

NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION 030 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES CHE 111 SECTION CE GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB I NATURAL SCIENCES ENT 110 SECTION 001 INSECT BIOLOGY NATURAL SCIENCES GEO 130 SECTION 001 EARTH'S PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT NATURAL SCIENCES GEO 130 SECTION 002 EARTH'S PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT NATURAL SCIENCES GEO 130 SECTION 003 EARTH'S PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT NATURAL SCIENCES GEO 135 SECTION 001 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE NATURAL SCIENCES GEO 135 SECTION 002 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE NATURAL SCIENCES GEO 135 SECTION 003 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE NATURAL SCIENCES GEO 135 SECTION 004 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE NATURAL SCIENCES GEO 135 SECTION 005 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE NATURAL SCIENCES GEO 135 SECTION 006 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE NATURAL SCIENCES GLY 110 SECTION 001 ENDANGERED PLANET INTR TO ENVRNMNTL GEOL NATURAL SCIENCES GLY 110 SECTION 002 ENDANGERED PLANET INTR TO ENVRNMNTL GEOL NATURAL SCIENCES GLY 110 SECTION 003 ENDANGERED PLANET INTR TO ENVRNMNTL GEOL NATURAL SCIENCES GLY 120 SECTION 001 SUSTAINABLE PLANET GLY OF NAT RESOURCES NATURAL SCIENCES GLY 120 SECTION 002 SUSTAINABLE PLANET GLY OF NAT RESOURCES NATURAL SCIENCES GLY 120 SECTION 003 SUSTAINABLE PLANET GLY OF NAT RESOURCES NATURAL SCIENCES GLY 120 SECTION 004 SUSTAINABLE PLANET GLY OF NAT RESOURCES NATURAL SCIENCES GLY 120 SECTION 401 SUSTAINABLE PLANET GLY OF NAT RESOURCES NATURAL SCIENCES PLS 104 SECTION 001 PLANTS,SOILS&PEOPLE A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE NATURAL SCIENCES PLS 104 SECTION 002 PLANTS,SOILS&PEOPLE A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE SOCIAL SCIENCES ANT 101 SECTION 001 INTRO TO ANTHROPOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES ANT 101 SECTION 002 INTRO TO ANTHROPOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES ANT 101 SECTION 003 INTRO TO ANTHROPOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES ANT 101 SECTION 004 INTRO TO ANTHROPOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES ANT 101 SECTION 005 INTRO TO ANTHROPOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES ANT 101 SECTION 006 INTRO TO ANTHROPOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES ANT 101 SECTION 007 INTRO TO ANTHROPOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES ANT 101 SECTION 008 INTRO TO ANTHROPOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES ANT 101 SECTION 009 INTRO TO ANTHROPOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES ANT 101 SECTION 010 INTRO TO ANTHROPOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES ANT 101 SECTION 011 INTRO TO ANTHROPOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES ANT 101 SECTION 012 INTRO TO ANTHROPOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES ANT 101 SECTION 013 INTRO TO ANTHROPOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES ANT 101 SECTION 014 INTRO TO ANTHROPOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES ANT 101 SECTION 015 INTRO TO ANTHROPOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES ANT 101 SECTION 016 INTRO TO ANTHROPOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES ANT 101 SECTION 017 INTRO TO ANTHROPOLOGY

16 Inquiry 2011-2012

SOCIAL SCIENCES ANT 101 SECTION 018 INTRO TO ANTHROPOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES ANT 101 SECTION 401 INTRO TO ANTHROPOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES ECO 101 SECTION 001 CONTEMPORARY ECO ISSUES SOCIAL SCIENCES ECO 101 SECTION 002 CONTEMPORARY ECO ISSUES SOCIAL SCIENCES GEO 172 SECTION 001 HUMAN GEOGRAPHY SOCIAL SCIENCES GEO 172 SECTION 002 HUMAN GEOGRAPHY SOCIAL SCIENCES GWS 200 SECTION 001 INTRO GWS SOCIAL SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCES GWS 200 SECTION 002 INTRO GWS SOCIAL SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 001 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 002 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 003 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 004 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 005 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 006 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 007 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 008 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 009 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 010 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 011 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 012 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 013 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 014 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 015 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 016 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 017 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 018 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 019 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 020 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 021 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 022 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 023 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 024 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 025 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 026 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 027 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 028 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 029 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 030 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 031 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY

17 Inquiry 2011-2012

SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 032 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 033 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 034 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 035 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 036 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 037 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 038 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 039 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 040 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 041 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 042 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 043 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 044 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 045 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 046 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 047 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 048 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 049 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES PSY 100 SECTION 050 INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 001 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 002 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 003 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 004 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 005 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 007 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 008 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 009 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 010 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 011 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 012 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 013 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 015 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 016 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 017 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 018 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 019 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 020 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 021 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 023 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY

18 Inquiry 2011-2012

SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 024 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 025 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 026 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 027 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 029 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 030 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 031 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 032 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 401 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY SOCIAL SCIENCES SOC 101 SECTION 402 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY

UK Core Intellectual Inquiry in the Arts and Creativity Rubric

UK Core Learning Outcome 1: Students will demonstrate an understanding of and ability to employ the processes of intellectual inquiry. Outcomes and Assessment Framework: Students will: (A) be able to identify multiple dimensions of a good question; determine when additional information is needed, find credible information efficiently using a variety of reference sources, and judge the quality of information as informed by rigorously developed evidence; (B) explore multiple and complex answers to questions/issues problems within and across the four broad knowledge areas: arts and creativity, humanities, social and behavioral sciences, and natural/ physical/mathematical sciences; (C) evaluate theses and conclusions in light of credible evidence; (E) explore the ethical implications of differing approaches, methodologies or conclusions; (D) and develop potential solutions to problems based on sound evidence and reasoning.

4 3 2 1 0 Identify multiple dimensions of a good question Define and distinguish approaches to creativity.

Specifically identifies, defines and distinguishes an approach to creativity.

Specifically identifies, defines and distinguishes an approach to creativity in a limited way.

Specifically identifies an approach to creativity but does not define or distinguish it.

Acknowledges but does not specifically identify, define or distinguish an approach to creativity.

Does not acknowledge the concept of creativity.

Theses and conclusions Demonstrates the application of logic, laws, constraints of the area of study and the evaluation and refinement of the results of own creative endeavors

Critically evaluates the issues involved in addressing one’s own work or implications of differing approaches; clearly articulates an argument and cites appropriate evidence; identifies the actual or potential impact of different approaches.

Articulates major issues involved in addressing one’s own work or implications of differing approaches; constructs an argument and supports assertions with a range of evidence.

Identifies issues involved in addressing one’s own work or implications of differing approaches; clearly states a position, and supports assertions with some evidence.

Refers to some reasons why evaluation of one’s own work or the implications of differing approaches is important but does not support evaluation with evidence.

Does not recognize major issues involved in the evaluation of one’s work or implications of differing approaches.

APPENDIX B

4 3 2 1 0

Ethical Implications Explore the ethical implications of differing approaches, methodologies or conclusions.

Clearly identifies one or more ethical implications; clearly and fully articulates an argument and cites appropriate evidence.

Clearly identifies ethical implication ethical implications of the creative process or product; constructs an argument and supports assertions with a range of evidence.

Clearly identifies ethical implication involved in the creative process or product and supports assertions with some evidence.

Refers to the existence of ethical implications but does not identify them or support that evaluation with evidence.

Does not recognize major ethical implications of the creative process or product.

Develop potential solutions to problems based on sound evidence and reasoning Engage actively in the creation of an object, installation, presentation, performance in a way that demonstrates an understanding of the creative process

Evidence of active engagement in creative process in an approach to solving a problem. The solution incorporates at least two of the following: demonstrates sophisticated skills and competency in a discipline or domain (may include novel materials, breaking established rules of practice, etc); employs ways of thinking that are new to the student; crosses boundaries in that it employs one or more approaches to create an insightful comparison; demonstrates thoughtful evaluation and revision.

Evidence of active engagement in creative process in an approach to solving a problem. The solution incorporates at least two of the following: demonstrates basic competency in a discipline or domain (materials, rules of practice, etc); applies ways of thinking that are new to the student; connects one or more ideas, approaches, or processes to create an insightful comparison.

Evidence of active engagement in creative process in an approach to solving a problem. The solution incorporates at least two of the following: applies basic skills in a discipline or domain (materials, rules of practice, etc); experiments with ways of thinking that are new to the student; acknowledges divergent approaches in a small way.

Evidence of active engagement in creative process in an approach to solving a problem. The solution incorporates at least one of the following: attempts basic skills a in a discipline or domain (materials, rules of practice, etc); expresses an idea, concept, or format; acknowledges contradictions.

No evidence of active engagement in creative process.

UK Core Intellectual Inquiry in the Humanities Rubric

UK Core Learning Outcome 1: Students will demonstrate an understanding of and ability to employ the processes of intellectual inquiry.

Outcomes and Assessment Framework: Students will: (A) be able to identify multiple dimensions of a good question; determine when additional information is needed, find credible information efficiently using a variety of reference sources, and judge the quality of information as informed by rigorously developed evidence; (B) explore multiple and complex answers to questions/issues problems within and across the four broad knowledge areas: arts and creativity, humanities, social and behavioral sciences, and natural/ physical/mathematical sciences; (C) evaluate theses and conclusions in light of credible evidence; (D) explore the ethical implications of differing approaches, methodologies or conclusions; and (E) develop potential solutions to problems based on sound evidence and reasoning.

4 3 2 1 0 Ability to identify multiple dimensions of a good question

Incorporates intellectual inquiry and fine discrimination in analysis or critical evaluation of texts and/or arguments. Where necessary, uses appropriate reference sources and provides supporting evidence convincingly and persuasively.

Incorporates intellectual inquiry and fine discrimination in analysis or critical evaluation of texts and/or arguments. Where necessary, uses some reference sources and provides some supporting evidence.

To a certain extent, incorporates intellectual inquiry in analysis or critical evaluation of texts and/or arguments. Where necessary, uses the bare minimum of reference sources but does not provide convincing supporting evidence.

To a very limited extent, incorporates intellectual inquiry in analysis or critical evaluation of texts and/or arguments. Where necessary, fails to use reference sources and does not provide supporting evidence.

Fails to perform any intellectual inquiry with regard to texts and/or arguments, and fails to use any appropriate reference sources.

Ability to explore multiple and complex answers to questions, issues or problems within the Humanities

Convincingly explores and evaluates the complexity of key questions, responses, and arguments in relation to texts or narratives. Explores different points of view on an argument or question.

Explores and evaluates the complexity of key questions, responses, and arguments in relation to texts or narratives. To some extent, explores arguments from different points of view.

To some extent, explores and evaluates the complexity of key questions, responses, and arguments in relation to texts or narratives. To a very limited extent, explores arguments from different points of view.

To a minimal extent, explores key questions, responses, and arguments in relation to texts or narratives, but does not explore arguments from different points of view.

Fails to explore multiple and complex answers to questions, issues or problems.

4 3 2 1 0 Ability to evaluate theses and conclusions in light of credible evidence

Using appropriate evidence and appropriate disciplinary literacy, critically evaluates key claims, arguments and conclusions pertaining to the subject, including the primary texts and (where applicable) secondary texts under discussion.

Using a certain amount of evidence and of appropriate disciplinary literacy, critically evaluates some of the claims, arguments and conclusions pertaining to the subject.

Using the minimum amount of evidence and of appropriate disciplinary literacy, attempts to evaluate critically some claims, arguments and conclusions pertaining to the subject.

Using the minimum amount of evidence, attempts to evaluate critically some claims pertaining to the subject, but is not entirely successful. Does not demonstrate adequate disciplinary literacy.

Does not critically evaluate any key claims, arguments or conclusions pertaining to the subject; uses no evidence. Fails to demonstrate any disciplinary literacy.

Ability to explore the ethical implications of differing approaches, methodologies or conclusions

Critically evaluates at least one approach, methodology, or interpretive model, showing some awareness of other competing interpretations and of the possible implications of these.

Critically evaluates at least one approach, methodology, or interpretive model, showing some awareness of other competing interpretations and their possible implications.

To a certain extent, evaluates at least one approach, methodology, or interpretive model, but shows minimum awareness of other interpretations and their implications.

To a minimum extent evaluates at least one approach, methodology, or interpretive model, but shows no awareness of other interpretations.

Fails to evaluate at least one approach, methodology, or interpretive model; no awareness of other interpretations.

Develop potential solutions to problems based on sound evidence and reasoning

In the course of written analysis of a text or texts, proposes solutions or answers to intellectual problems or questions, using clear, logical argumentation supported by solid evidence, such as illustrations, examples and/or quotations

In the course of written analysis of a text or texts, proposes solutions or answers to intellectual problems or questions, using clear, logical argumentation supported by some evidence, such as illustrations, examples and/or quotations.

In the course of written analysis of a text or texts, proposes (to a certain extent only) solutions or answers to problems or questions, but there are flaws in the argumentation, and gaps in the evidence.

Makes an attempt at a written analysis of a text or texts, and proposes (to a minimal extent only), solutions or answers to problems or questions, but argumentation is deeply flawed and there is little evidence.

Fails to offer a written analysis of a text or texts, and fails to offer solutions or answers to problems or questions; argumentation is deeply flawed and there is no evidence.

UK Core Intellectual Inquiry in the Natural, Physical, and Mathematical Sciences

UK Core Learning Outcome 1: Students will demonstrate an understanding of and ability to employ the processes of intellectual inquiry. Outcomes and Assessment Framework: Students will: (A) be able to identify multiple dimensions of a good question; determine when additional information is needed, find credible information efficiently using a variety of reference sources, and judge the quality of information as informed by rigorously developed evidence; (B) explore multiple and complex answers to questions/issues problems within and across the four broad knowledge areas: arts and creativity, humanities, social and behavioral sciences, and natural/ physical/mathematical sciences; (C) evaluate theses and conclusions in light of credible evidence; (E) explore the ethical implications of differing approaches, methodologies or conclusions; (D) and develop potential solutions to problems based on sound evidence and reasoning. Specific Learning Outcomes for Inquiry in the Natural, Physical, and Mathematical Sciences By the end of the course, students should be able to:

1. Describe methods of inquiry that lead to scientific knowledge and distinguish scientific fact from pseudoscience. 2. Explain fundamental principles in a branch of science. 3. Apply fundamental principles to interpret and make predictions in a branch of science. 4. Demonstrate an understanding of at least one scientific discovery that changed the way scientists understand the world. 5. Give examples of how science interacts with society. 6. Conduct a hands-on project using scientific methods to include design, data collection, analysis, summary of the results, conclusions, alternative

approaches, and future studies. 7. Recognize when information is needed and demonstrate the ability to find, evaluate and use effectively sources of scientific information.

* A required student product (paper, laboratory report, presentation, etc.) based on the hands-on project. This requirement is the curriculum-embedded performance based assessable product.

4 3 2 1 0 Explore multiple and complex answers to questions/issues within the natural, physical and/or mathematical sciences by identifying the dimensions of a good question

The research question is described clearly, completely, fully and in great detail. The research question is answerable by experiment. The hypothesis is based on assumptions with conditions.

The research question is described but some detail is missing. The research question is answerable by experiment but lacks clarity. The hypothesis lacks some assumptions or conditions.

The research question is inadequate or incompletely described. The research question is not answerable by experiment. The hypothesis is not based on assumptions.

The research question is inadequate or incompletely described. The research question is not answerable by experiment. The hypothesis is absent.

The research question is absent. The hypothesis is absent.

4 3 2 1 0 Explore multiple and complex answers to questions/issues within the natural, physical and/or mathematical sciences by evaluating theses and conclusions in light of credible evidence; and judging the quality of information as informed by rigorously developed evidence

Provides a well-developed evaluation and analysis of the data and questions its accuracy, relevance, and completeness. Justifies key results and procedures, explains assumptions and reasons.

Evaluation and analysis of data contains minor errors/omissions. Justifies some results or procedures, explains reasons.

Evaluation and analysis of data contains major errors/omissions. Justification of results contains significant flaws.

Evaluation and analysis of data contains major errors/omissions. No justification of results.

Evaluation and analysis of data is missing. No justification of results.

Explore multiple and complex answers to questions/issues within the natural, physical and/or mathematical sciences by exploring alternative approaches and/or future study of the research question

Critically evaluates major alternative points of view/ approaches.

Provides a detailed description of future research studies.

Makes suggestions related to the improvement of the existing experimental design.

Offers evaluations of obvious alternative points of view/approaches. Makes suggestions for future research studies, which have minor flaws. Makes some suggestions for improvement of the existing experimental design, which are incomplete or have minor flaws.

Superficially evaluates obvious alternative points of view/ approaches. Makes suggestions for future research studies, which have significant flaws. Makes some suggestions for improvement of the existing experimental design, which have significant flaws.

Superficially evaluates obvious alternative points of view/ approaches. Does not make suggestions for future research studies, or for the redesigning of the existing procedure.

Fails to evaluate obvious alternative points of view/ approaches. Does not make suggestions for future research studies, or for the redesigning the existing procedure.

UK Core Intellectual Inquiry in the Social Science Rubric UK Core Learning Outcome 1: Students will demonstrate an understanding of and ability to employ the processes of intellectual inquiry. Outcomes and Assessment Framework: Students will: (A) be able to identify multiple dimensions of a good question; determine when additional information is needed, find credible information efficiently using a variety of reference sources, and judge the quality of information as informed by rigorously developed evidence; (B) explore multiple and complex answers to questions/issues problems within and across the four broad knowledge areas: arts and creativity, humanities, social and behavioral sciences, and natural/ physical/mathematical sciences; (C) evaluate theses and conclusions in light of credible evidence; (E) explore the ethical implications of differing approaches, methodologies or conclusions; (D) and develop potential solutions to problems based on sound evidence and reasoning.

4 3 2 1 0 Identify multiple dimensions of a good question Define and distinguish approaches investigating social questions/issues/ problems

Incorporates an understanding of conceptual approaches to investigating social questions/ issues/ problems in an evaluation or critical analysis

Defines and distinguishes conceptual approaches to investigating social questions/ issues/ problems, but does not fully distinguish these differences into an evaluation or critical analysis

Identifies conceptual approaches to investigating social questions/ issues/ problems, but does not evaluate or critically analyze them

Acknowledges conceptual approaches to investigating social questions/issues/ problems exist but does not identify, critically analyze or evaluate them

Does not acknowledge conceptual approaches to investigating social questions/ issues/ problems

Multiple and complex answers to questions/ issues/ problems

Applies an understanding of multiple and complex answers to social questions/ issues/ problems; demonstrates how conceptions of the issue under discussion which are constructed from multiple perspectives

Describes multiple and complex answers to social questions/ issues/ problems; provides historical and cultural background to the issue under discussion

Identifies multiple and complex answers to social questions/ issues/ problems; exhibits a basic understanding of the issue under discussion

Does not correctly identify multiple and complex answers to social questions/ issues/ problems; exhibits a shallow or flawed understanding of the issue under discussion

Does not identify multiple and complex answers to social questions/ issues/ problems

4 3 2 1 0 Theses and conclusions Explore empirical evidence or conclusions drawn from empirical evidence

Critically evaluates the methodological issues involved in generating data and coming to conclusions about social questions/ issues/ problems; clearly articulates an argument and cites appropriate evidence; identifies the actual or potential impact of different approaches

Articulates major methodological issues involved in generating data and coming to conclusions about social questions/ issues/ problems; constructs an argument and supports assertions with a range of evidence

Identifies methodological issues involved in generating data and coming to conclusions about social questions/ issues/ problems; clearly states a position, and supports assertions with some evidence

Refers to some methodological issues involved in generating data and coming to conclusions about the social questions/ issues/ problems; states a position is important but does not support evaluation with evidence

Does not recognize methodological issues involved in generating data and coming to conclusions about social questions/ issues/ problems

Ability to explore the ethical implications of differing approaches, methodologies or conclusions

Critically evaluates different approaches, methodologies, or interpretive models, fully demonstrating awareness of their ethical implications on social questions/ issues/ problems

Critically evaluates different approaches, methodologies, or interpretive models, showing some awareness of their ethical implications on social questions/ issues/ problems

To some extent, evaluates different approaches, methodologies, or interpretive models, acknowledging awareness of their ethical implications on social questions/ issues/ problems

Identifies different approaches, methodologies, or interpretive models, but shows no awareness of the ethical implications of these on social questions/ issues/ problems

Fails to identify or evaluate approaches, methodologies, or interpretive models; shows no awareness of their ethical implications on social questions/ issues/ problems

Develop potential solutions to problems based on sound evidence and reasoning Engage actively in the examination of a social questions/ issues/ problem in a way that demonstrates an understanding of the inquiry process

Proposes solutions to social questions/ issues/ problems that demonstrates understanding of the generation/analysis of data and applies findings to potential solutions

Proposes solutions to social questions/ issues/ problems that demonstrates some understanding of the generation/analysis of data and how findings might be applied to potential solutions

Proposes solutions to social questions/ issues/ problems that demonstrates minimum understanding of the generation/analysis of data and how findings might be applied to potential solutions

Proposes solutions to social questions/ issues/ problems but demonstrates no understanding of the generation/analysis of data and how findings might be applied to potential solutions

No evidence of identifying solutions to social questions/ issues/ problems

Appendix C – Evaluator Survey Results

Arts & Creativity Initial Report

Last Modified: 05/11/2012

1. Q1. On a scale of 1-5, with 1 being very difficult and 5 being very easy, how would you describe the evaluation process using Bb Outcomes?

# Answer

Response %

1 1

0 0%

2 2

0 0%

3 3

2 67%

4 4

1 33%

5 5

0 0%

Total 3 100%

Statistic Value

Min Value 3

Max Value 4

Mean 3.33

Variance 0.33

Standard Deviation 0.58

Total Responses 3

2. Q2. What one change would you recommend to the Bb Outcomes system?

# Answer

Response %

1

Go directly to the evaluation space without having to search through ‘My Places.’

1 33%

2

Only see the evaluations (i.e. the Analyze tab) and not all of the information in the packet (i.e. Collected Evidence).

0 0%

3 View the student work and rubric on the same screen.

2 67%

4

Provide an evaluator report of the scores that I submitted.

0 0%

5 Other: Please explain

0 0%

Total 3 100%

Other: Please explain

Statistic Value

Min Value 1

Max Value 3

Mean 2.33

Variance 1.33


Total Responses 3

3. Q3. Did you experience any errors in the Bb system during your evaluation time?

# Answer

Response %

1 Yes - go to Q4

0 0%

2 No - go to Q5

3 100%

Total 3 100%

Statistic Value

Min Value 2

Max Value 2

Mean 2.00

Variance 0.00


Total Responses 3

4. Q4. How much extra time do you estimate you spent in the system due to errors?

# Answer

Response %

1 0-1 hour

0 0%

2 1-2 hours

0 0%

3 More than 2 hours

0 0%

Total 0 0%

Statistic Value

Min Value -

Max Value -

Mean 0.00

Variance 0.00


Total Responses 0

5. Q5. On a scale of 1 – 5, with 1 being least effective and 5 being most effective, how would you rate the Creativity Inquiry outcome’s rubric?

# Answer

Response %

1 1

0 0%

2 2

1 33%

3 3

1 33%

4 4

1 33%

5 5

0 0%

Total 3 100%

Statistic Value

Min Value 2

Max Value 4

Mean 3.00

Variance 1.00


Total Responses 3

6. Q6. How might the rubric be improved? (limited to 1,000 characters)

Text Response

The rubric would benefit from being written in a language that relates more specifically to the areas it is evaluating. The ethical implications section is not clealry defined and does not seem to relate to the assignements beign evaluated. For example, what might work here is how the student placed their work in context (historical/contemporary) and refenced other artists, musicians, movements, etc. Generally speaking, the rubric created and the assignments given do not seem to match up very well. It would be very helpful for faculty giving the assignments to have a hand in creating the rubrics.

Use of nominclature that is relevant to typical pedagogy in creativity. The use of the work ethical is not relevant and needs to be changed in the learning outcome itself as well as in the sub-heading on the rubric.

Use differen terminology in the descriptions than those used in the objectives. Further explain the objectives in different terms.

Statistic Value

Total Responses 3

7. Q8. Based on the total of the assignments that you evaluated, what would you say is the one thing that students did well? (limited to 1,000 characters)

Text Response

Many did well in defining and distinguishing approaches to creativity. I could clearly see in all of the projects I evaluated that students did in fact learn to think creatively.

I believe this question is faulty in itself, as we were asked to assess the projects through the student outcomes and not the student's ability to accomplish their work.

Students seem to be doing a good job at creative problem solving. They are applying interesting solutions to the problems presented.

Statistic Value

Total Responses 3

8. Q9. Based on the total of the assignments that you evaluated, what would you say is the one thing that students need to improve? (limited to 1,000 characters)

Text Response

Explaining why they chose to represent the idea/story/theme/etc with the specific technique/process they used. Understanding the context of their work, which could be a cultural, historical or artistic context for the work (i.e. a specific film, photographer, artistic movement, social issue, etc.).

I believe this question is faulty in itself, as we were asked to assess the projects through the student outcomes and not the student's ability to accomplish their work.

The need improvement on criticall analyzing the projects they create. They are actually doing more than they can articulate.

Statistic Value

Total Responses 3

9. On a scale of 1 - 5, with 1 being no match at all and 5 being very well matched, how well would you say that the assignments matched the rubric?

# Answer

Response %

1 1

0 0%

2 2

2 67%

3 3

1 33%

4 4

0 0%

5 5

0 0%

Total 3 100%

Statistic Value

Min Value 2

Max Value 3

Mean 2.33

Variance 0.33


Total Responses 3

10. What suggestions would you make for the overall UK Core assessment process? Feel free to comment about communication with faculty, the gathering of student work, and the evaluation process.

Text Response

Request projects that are not just technical, but have a conceptual aspect as well. Request that only one project is uploaded and that formats are consistent. Beyond writing, we need to see examples of the work (which could be a short video, photograph, audio, etc). Projects evaluated should be completed by an individual and not evaluated as a group project. Guideline should be sent to faculty, along with an updated rubric. Projects that only have a photo or only have text (esp. in the fine art context) should not be evaluated.

We need to work more diligently to get students to follow direction on the process. Many of the packets were incomplete, having an image and no description or vice versa. This needs more emphasis in the classes generating these products.

Statistic Value

Total Responses 2

Humanities Initial Report



# Answer

Response %

1 1

2 22%

2 2

0 0%

3 3

3 33%

4 4

4 44%

5 5

0 0%

Total 9 100%

Statistic Value

Min Value 1

Max Value 4

Mean 3.00

Variance 1.50


Total Responses 9


# Answer

Response %

1


1 13%

2


1 13%


4 50%

4


2 25%


0 0%

Total 8 100%


Statistic Value

Min Value 1

Max Value 4

Mean 2.88

Variance 0.98


Total Responses 8


# Answer

Response %

1 Yes - go to Q4

5 56%

2 No - go to Q5

4 44%

Total 9 100%

Statistic Value

Min Value 1

Max Value 2

Mean 1.44

Variance 0.28


Total Responses 9


# Answer

Response %

1 0-1 hour

5 100%

2 1-2 hours

0 0%

3 More than 2 hours

0 0%

Total 5 100%

Statistic Value

Min Value 1

Max Value 1

Mean 1.00

Variance 0.00


Total Responses 5

5. Q5. On a scale of 1 – 5, with 1 being least effective and 5 being most effective, how would you rate the Humanities Inquiry outcome’s rubric?

# Answer

Response %

1 1

1 11%

2 2

5 56%

3 3

2 22%

4 4

1 11%

5 5

0 0%

Total 9 100%

Statistic Value

Min Value 1

Max Value 4

Mean 2.33

Variance 0.75


Total Responses 9


Text Response

items need to take into account diversity of assignments submitted, be more precisely formulated, less repetitive, more distinct from each other

Rubric categories should be mutually exclusive and more generically applicable to a university level research or argument paper. The theory of composition should be clear to scorers. For example: 1) A thesis category; 2) A topic sentence category; 3) An evidence category; 4)An Analysis/Reason Category; 5) An Acknowledgment of other points of view and response category.

I think the language regarding the development of the argument needs to be improved, so that it is clearly defined and separate. I also would like to see some language regarding the WAY the student uses the resouces, ie does the student use secondary resources in an appropriate and effective manner.

make it a concise three-choice rubric. clarify what the criterion for each objective is and what falls below and exceeds it.

Some of the wording needs to be changed as we discussed. Headings need to be established in place of numbers to give reviewers a global understanding of what a 4 means, etc. Under the criterion, a list of possible key words could be used to help categorize the criteria: thesis, ideas, argument, evidence, logic, etc. These words can help the evaluator, the professor and the student understand what kinds of things help meet the criteria, then look to the rubric to see how to perform with those concepts. Remove the word "fail", even if people say they do not have a problem "failing" someone or something, they do psychologically- not to mention, that terminology can be used against UK while collecting data.

Some of the criteria involved assessing more than one skill. For example: "Ability to identify multiple dimensions of a good question" appropriately asked about intellectual inquiry, but also threw in use of sources, which fit better with some of the other criteria. I think the categories could be streamlined considerably. As we noted, having a description of the level of competency ("Just meets college-level expectations") listed at the top would be helpful.

more specific differences between 3 & 4, multiple items separated, accounting for style and structure

The problem was not the rubric so much as some of these early assignments not conforming to the post-created rubric

Statistic Value

Total Responses 8


Text Response

summarize info, describe texts/images

Students summarized what they read well. This ability to summarize what was read is not a college-level skill and thus was difficult to grade on this rubric.

Most students did a fairly good job of defining their thesis statement at the start of the essays.

Student writing was, for the most part, clear and coherent.

Students followed directions well; responses were formulaic answers to direct questions even when they weren't accurate or insightful.

I do think that the students are putting forth an effort and trying to produce something educated. I feel that they express themselves, they take an interest in their courses and they do learn.

Students understood the importance of thesis statements. They didn't always successfully write one that was clear, but they appeared to know what a thesis statement is and to highlight it in their introductions.

very difficult to say. a large portion of the assignments were not relevant to the rubric. mostly descriptive exercises with little critical analysis

The arguments were often creative and unique

Statistic Value

Total Responses 9


Text Response

argument: form thesis statement, draw distinctions, identify and assess multiple positions

Students need to improve their ability to react to other points of view, respond to them with evidence, and construct their OWN arguments about a subject of inquiry. Papers overly dependent upon research or reading of outside sources that are not primary artifacts of analysis are not appopriate at this level.

Coherent consistent development of their arguments throughout the paper

Students need to work on critical thinking, particularly as it pertains to constructing cricical, contestable thesis statements.

Students need to be read closely and with purpose; they need to be inspired to pose critical questions, not just spit out answers that suffice.

Structuring their argument. But this takes time and lots of practice.

Organization. A simple understanding of how to build an argument around paragraphs and topic sentences could improve their papers considerably.

original thought, structuring an argument, learning to write less like wikipedia articles

proofreading

Statistic Value

Total Responses 9


# Answer

Response %

1 1

0 0%

2 2

5 56%

3 3

3 33%

4 4

1 11%

5 5

0 0%

Total 9 100%

Statistic Value

Min Value 2

Max Value 4

Mean 2.56

Variance 0.53


Total Responses 9


Text Response

assignments submitted need to fit rubric (I had one Q&A assignment); rubric needs to take into account that not all artefacts are original pieces of argumentation or research; the rubric demands a very comprehensive sort of assignment

It is unclear what the goals of the assessment are or what the data will be used for. The rubris is so general and the classes so disparate it seems impossible to construct Core goals from whatever data are being collected. Unfortunately it seems like far too many course have been assigned "Core" without any real "Coreness" being incorporated into their structure.

It would be nice to have a more varied sample of work from different classes. Reading the same essays over and over again, especially when they are not in your field and are vague, is very difficult. More variety would make for a better and more accurate evaluation process and a more equitable ditribution of the workload among the assessors.

The environment in which we were asked to do assessment work was not conducive to thoughtful evalution.

The faculty and the students HAVE to have the rubric. It really is not fair to assess anyone without understanding how they are being assessed. Faculty need to know which of their assignments best fit the assessment, and potentially need to write a justification (150) words as to how they see the assignment meeting the goals of the rubric. It needs to be put on the syllabus of UK Core courses, with a link to the rubric for students to see. And faculty need to be trained about how the rubric is going to be interpreted and used so they can communicate this with students. And you need to brace yourself for backlash. :)

This process will feel more useful, I suspect, in the future after faculty have been made aware of the rubrics and had a better chance to match assignments to the expected outcomes. At this point it felt like a hollow effort. The rubric needs to be tweaked. I struggled to discern the criteria in light of a range of very diverse assignments. Coffee would be nice too!

More communication with the faculty teaching the courses as to what should be assigned and evaluated

Fairly smooth process. Would suggest access to coffee all day :) and a greater emphasis on matching at least ONE course assignment to the actual rubric.

Statistic Value

Total Responses 8

Natural/Physical/Mathematical Sciences Initial Report



# Answer

Response %

1 1

1 14%

2 2

0 0%

3 3

1 14%

4 4

3 43%

5 5

2 29%

Total 7 100%

Statistic Value

Min Value 1

Max Value 5

Mean 3.71

Variance 1.90


Total Responses 7


# Answer

Response %

1


0 0%

2


1 14%


2 29%

4


1 14%


3 43%

Total 7 100%


Make the rublric fully show up . Had to stroll the Bb window AND the rubric window to access the buttons. A lot of scrolling to click 4 simple buttons.

I thought it was fine the way it was.

no recommendations

Statistic Value

Min Value 2

Max Value 5

Mean 3.86

Variance 1.48


Total Responses 7


# Answer

Response %

1 Yes - go to Q4

3 43%

2 No - go to Q5

4 57%

Total 7 100%

Statistic Value

Min Value 1

Max Value 2

Mean 1.57

Variance 0.29


Total Responses 7


# Answer

Response %

1 0-1 hour

4 100%

2 1-2 hours

0 0%

3 More than 2 hours

0 0%

Total 4 100%

Statistic Value

Min Value 1

Max Value 1

Mean 1.00

Variance 0.00


Total Responses 4

5. Q5. On a scale of 1 – 5, with 1 being least effective and 5 being most effective, how would you rate the Science Inquiry outcome’s rubric?

# Answer

Response %

1 1

1 14%

2 2

2 29%

3 3

3 43%

4 4

1 14%

5 5

0 0%

Total 7 100%

Statistic Value

Min Value 1

Max Value 4

Mean 2.57

Variance 0.95


Total Responses 7


Text Response

The rubric only allows for hands on experiences that involve hypothesis testing. There are many valid experiments that meet the criteria of the hands on project learning outcome that don't involve hypothesis testing. For example, analyzing an unknown to identify it or determine the amount is valid and would include all the features listed but is not hypothesis testing.

I think there should be one other question concerning methodology for the projects. Currently there is the introduction, data results and analysis, and the conclusion. But there isn't any topic that refers to how they obtained data, how they made measurements, or a scheme for how to answer their hypothosis. This is a very key aspect of a research project. It is even true if the research doesn't involve quantitative measurements. If a student is looking qualitatively at an image, or comparing two features qualitatively, they should still express the criteria that they are going to use to decide what something is, or how two things are different. This criteria is essential for people reading the report to be able to assess the outcomes.

Make it more general. It is currently for hypothesis-driven research only, not for other types of ones (e.g., observational studies) at all.

The rubric is somewhat limited to a traditional experiment and doesn't allow for observational types of inquiry.

could be more specific - have more detailed descriptions of what the numbers are based on

The current rubric is designed to assess research projects although other assignments could be and were submitted (see comments in the suggestion section of the survey). If that focus were retained, I would offer the following suggestions. Section on identifying a good question– Change the second criterion to, "The research question is answerable by experiment or observation" given that not all scientific research needs to be experimental. For the third criterion, the statement might be clearer if changed to, "The hypothesis is based on a reasonable rationale" versus "assumptions with conditions." Given the restrictions on length of response, my feedback for this question is continued in the overall suggestion box.

Include a section that evaluates whether the methods actually test the hypothesis. Of course, any methods that the student applies will be constrained by ability and resources, but the methods should at least test the hypothesis.

Statistic Value

Total Responses 7


Text Response

I had one set of assignments that did good data collection and evaluation of the data to demonstrate understanding of weather patterns. I believe the assignment met the criteria of "data collection, analysis, summary of results, conclusions" but had to be rated a zero according to the rubric.

They did well researching the background concerning their topics. But the majority of the assignments I evaluated did not follow the rubric for a research project what-so-ever

Performing experimental research, and good interpretations of results

Based on the rubric, nothing as the assignment did not fit the rubric at all.

Imbedding graphics - graphs, tables, photos, charts

Most were able to follow the very specific directions of the assignments they were given.

Statistic Value

Total Responses 6


Text Response

I don't believe it was a student issue but an instructor issue if not designing an assignment to match what would be evaluated.

I am not sure what the students need to improve on. The instructors for the courses must begin do real research projects and not simply book reports on other peoples research. What I saw were not a research projects. But I don't think this was the students' fault. It was the instructor who didn't realize what a student project actually is.

Drawing implications

improve their explanations beyond the superficiala information they get from resources (i.e. not use a collection of quotes, but have their own original ideas)

Their writing skills are very poor. There is little evidence of some students proofreading their paper or even using a spelling/grammar checker. A paper we all reviewed for the "norming" procedure was supposed to be on a simulation of species and the student wrote a "stimulation of spices." Of course, a spell checker wouldn't catch that. At least we all got a good laugh.

They showed an inability to consider deeper reasons for their results beyond the surface answer.

Statistic Value

Total Responses 6


# Answer

Response %

1 1

4 57%

2 2

3 43%

3 3

0 0%

4 4

0 0%

5 5

0 0%

Total 7 100%

Statistic Value

Min Value 1

Max Value 2

Mean 1.43

Variance 0.29


Total Responses 7


Text Response

The rubric needs to be revisited. Once obtained it must be communicated with all UK core faculty teaching the course.

The faculty need to be made aware of the rubric that we use to assess the projects. I am sure that for the courses I evaluated, the faculty was not aware of what a student research project actually involves. One way they could learn is to require all GenEd faculty to spend about an hour or two going through the normalization excerise that the evaluators did before begin our evaluations. Then they would see first had that writing a report from references found on the web is not compliant with the GenEd rubric. The root of the problem is that most faculty do not understand what project enhanced instruction is. They seem to think that simply modifing a lab or asking students to read an article is student research. It is not. So this problem must be corrected before the GenEd student research projects can be advanced to a higher level.

The current rubric is very seriously flawed. I strongly believe that there MUST be different versions of rubric, in order to accommodate different types of assignments and research. I often encounter people who consider hypothesis-driven research to be the only scientific one. I think the rubric has been developed based on that belief, which is totally flawed.

I think the actual process worked well and was well organized. What frustrated me was that some of the evaluators seemed to want to have a philosophical discussion on the merits of this type of assessment..

better communication as to what the assessment is looking for so that the assignment give matches what the assessment is based on - having the rubric BEFORE having to make the assignment

Response to Question 6 continued – Section on exploring alternative approaches – The category is "… exploring alternative approaches and/or future study of the research question" and yet the rubric lists them as separate criteria to be satisfied. Shouldn't there be an "and/or" in each of the boxes? Between the question section and the analysis/evaluation section – How about a Methods section? "Explore multiple and complex answers … by designing scientifically sound methods for testing a hypothesis." Criteria could be: 1. Description of methods is clear. 2. If an experiment, dependent and independent variables are clearly identified. 3. The proposed method tests the hypothesis. Overall Suggestions - The rubric needs to align with the assignments. The rubric is currently written to assess learning outcome #6 in the natural science template, but assignments varied. While some were indeed research-based, others were papers that reviewed a publication or video while others were posters displaying information gathered, most probably, from the Internet (for example, on climate change). There needs to be clear communication with natural science faculty as to what student products are acceptable for UK Core assessment purposes. There are 7 learning outcomes in the natural science UK Core template. I think faculty were lead to believe that they could choose a student product that would satisfy one or more of these learning outcomes. The rubric, however, is written to assess learning outcome #6 only – a hands-on research project. This is, in my opinion, the most appropriate artifact to assess, but I don't think this has been made clear to instructors. Also, the rubric needs to be made available to the faculty who, in turn, can share it with students so all know what is expected.

Make sure the faculty know the rubric beforehand. Faculty teaching should Core courses should be required to evaluate at least some results. The reasons for the assessment and actions taken on the assessments should be more clear..

Statistic Value

Total Responses 7

Social Sciences Initial Report



# Answer

Response %

1 1

0 0%

2 2

0 0%

3 3

2 40%

4 4

2 40%

5 5

1 20%

Total 5 100%

Statistic Value

Min Value 3

Max Value 5

Mean 3.80

Variance 0.70


Total Responses 5


# Answer

Response %

1


1 33%

2


1 33%


1 33%

4


0 0%


0 0%

Total 3 100%


Statistic Value

Min Value 1

Max Value 3

Mean 2.00

Variance 1.00


Total Responses 3


# Answer

Response %

1 Yes - go to Q4

0 0%

2 No - go to Q5

4 100%

Total 4 100%

Statistic Value

Min Value 2

Max Value 2

Mean 2.00

Variance 0.00


Total Responses 4


# Answer

Response %

1 0-1 hour

0 0%

2 1-2 hours

0 0%

3 More than 2 hours

0 0%

Total 0 0%

Statistic Value

Min Value -

Max Value -

Mean 0.00

Variance 0.00


Total Responses 0

5. Q5. On a scale of 1 – 5, with 1 being least effective and 5 being most effective, how would you rate the Social Science Inquiry outcome’s rubric?

# Answer

Response %

1 1

0 0%

2 2

2 50%

3 3

1 25%

4 4

1 25%

5 5

0 0%

Total 4 100%

Statistic Value

Min Value 2

Max Value 4

Mean 2.75

Variance 0.92


Total Responses 4


Text Response

1) There needs to be a "not applicable" option. 2) Some of the content is unrealistice (e.g., research ethics in a 100-level course). 3) The overall science of the process is questionable.

It is too much to expect of what are largely freshman in 100-level courses. Methods and theoretical/conceptual knowledge are both covered, yet it is very difficult to do both of these well in one assignment that is appropriate in length and scope for undergraduates. Likewise, most intro social science courses do not cover research ethics, so this was largely N/A.

The rubric did not "fit" many of the writing samples that were evaluated.

Statistic Value

Total Responses 3


Text Response

I evaluated 22 students who did one assignment and 3 students who did another. For the 22 students doing the first assignment, the strength was exploring multiple approaches to a particular question.

None of my assignments demonstrated the rubric items well, which is not surprising given that faculty hadn't seen the rubric before planning their assignments!

Applied social science concepts to novel events or materials (e.g., real world situations, others' published research, etc.)

They gave very insightful answers that drew on their personal experiences.

Statistic Value

Total Responses 4


Text Response

Of the 22 students doing the first assignment, there was no consideration of ethics, though this is not the fault of the students...more the fault of the assignment.

Can't say since the assignments were not a good fit for this evaluation

Hard to tell what students don't know versus what was not covered or required in the assignments. Students seemed to have issues with independent and dependent variables and controls (quantitative methods).

Gramnar, sentence structure, and organization

Statistic Value

Total Responses 4


# Answer

Response %

1 1

2 50%

2 2

1 25%

3 3

1 25%

4 4

0 0%

5 5

0 0%

Total 4 100%

Statistic Value

Min Value 1

Max Value 3

Mean 1.75

Variance 0.92


Total Responses 4


Text Response

I never did think we got normed. In the discussions between the professors, we should have discussed not the general score each of us gave to an assignment, but each of the five specficic scores. That seems to me like the only way to really make sure we are on the same page.

again, the science behind this process needs to be evaluated. Junk in = junk out!

The rubric needs to be simplified and possibly broken into two parts (methods OR concepts/theory). Also, instructors should receive a copy of the rubric before designing their course and assignments to be evaluated.

Seems like the sample of assignments that evaluated represent a very small sample. As much as I hate to say it, I think that we need to evaluate a larger sample of papers to get a good assessment.

Statistic Value

Total Responses 4

1 Quantitative Reasoning 2011-2012

2011-2012 UK Core Assessment: Quantitative Reasoning Overview of Assessment

• Artifacts were gathered from the following areas offered in Fall 2011 (Appendix A): o Quantitative Foundations – 6 courses with 97 total sections o Statistical Inferential Reasoning – 3 courses with 79 total sections

• For each area, the faculty evaluators used an area-specific rubric (Appendix B) to complete 280 total evaluations on General Education Learning Outcome3: Students will demonstrate an understanding of and ability to employ methods of quantitative reasoning.

• All evaluations took place using the Blackboard Artifact Assessment process on the following days:

o Quantitative Foundations – May 11, 2012 (4 faculty evaluators) o Statistical Inferential Reasoning – May 9, 2012 (6 faculty evaluators)


Inquiry Scores Artifacts (student assignments) were scored using the rubric on a scale of 0-4, with 4 representing the highest level of performance and 0 being the lowest level. All accessible artifacts (those which could be opened by evaluators for scoring in Blackboard) were scored at least once. Approximately ten percent of the artifacts were distributed to multiple evaluators for additional scoring. This over-sampling was to estimate the inter-rater reliability of the evaluators. Artifacts were scored using a hybrid method which assigns both an overall score to the given artifact (holistic) as well as individual scores to particular subcategories as defines by the rubric (analytic).

This report will state the frequency of all scores, regardless of the agreement or disagreement of those artifacts that were evaluated multiple times.

Area N Overall Score Mean sd % at 2 or

better

Quantitative Foundations 112 2.52 1.07 81.3

Statistical Inferential Reasoning 168 2.36 0.95 80.4

The following charts break down area-specific scores to include the analytic scoring results.

Quantitative Foundations (n=112)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 1 2 3 4

Apply knowledge to realworld problems (2.70)

Appraise the efficacy ofarguments (2.36)



Statistical Inferential Reasoning (n=168)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 1 2 3 4

Apply knowledge to real-world problems (2.46)

Explain everyday uncertaintyby statistical science (2.31)

Appraise the efficacy ofstatistical arguments (2.35)



Monitoring the Evaluation Process All evaluations took place using the Blackboard assessment system. The evaluators for each area were gathered and normed between May 9 - 11, 2012. During the norming process, evaluators read and scored a minimum of three artifacts, and were asked to discuss their rationale for evaluating these artifacts. Evaluators were deemed to be “normed” when the group came to an agreement on the overall score on each of the area-specific assignments being reviewed. Assignments that were scored twice were considered to be “in agreement” when the scores were within one point of each other.

Area Total assignments scored

Assignments scored twice

% inter-rater agreement

Quantitative Foundations 112 9 100

Statistical Inferential Reasoning 168 14 100


Evaluator Feedback After evaluations were completed, all evaluators were sent a survey using an email distribution list. The survey (Appendix C) asked evaluators to provide feedback on the assessment process, the quality of the rubric, and the quality of the students’ work. Overall, 5 out of 10 evaluators responded to the survey resulting in a response rate of 50%. Some selected responses are included below (see Appendix C) for area-specific feedback.

0

1

2

3

4

5

VeryDifficult

2 3 4 Very Easy

Ease of Using Bb Outcomes to Evaluate

QuantitativeFoundations

StatisticalInferentialReasoning

0

1

2

3

4

5

LeastEffective

2 3 4 MostEffective

Rating of Inquiry Area Outcome's Rubric

QuantitativeFoundations

Statistical InferentialReasoning


0

1

2

3

4

5

No MatchAt All

2 3 4 Very WellMatched

Matching of Assignments to Rubric

Quantitative Foundations

Statistical InferentialReasoning


Summary of Key Findings Overall, 81.3% of the Quantitative Foundations assignments and 80.4% of the SIR assignments scored at or above a 2 rating (which is considered "competent") with a mean score of 2.52 and 2.36, respectively. A considerable issue in this assessment cycle was that the rubrics by which the assignments were evaluated were not available to faculty until after the collection process had concluded. By making these available well in advance to faculty in the future it should help ensure the assignments are an appropriate reflection of the outcome areas being assessed. In turn, this should improve the scores overall and ensure more congruency between assignment and rubric content. In addition, all areas evaluated twice were at 100% for inter-rater agreement indicating that the norming process was effective and there was considerable consistency between evaluators. It will be important to communicate the assessment results back to the campus community and, especially, the UK Core teaching faculty. Finally, the rubrics should be reviewed and revised, as appropriate, based on the feedback given here by the evaluators. This cycle represented the first time the rubrics have been available and utilized therefore it’s important that they evolve as necessary.


Appendix A – Quantitative Reasoning Courses and Sections Providing Assignment Information (Fall 2012)

UK CORE AREA COURSE SECTION TITLE QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS GLY 151 SECTION 002 EARTH DYNAMICS QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS GLY 151 SECTION 004 EARTH DYNAMICS QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 111 SECTION 002 INTRO TO CONTEMP MATH QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 111 SECTION 003 INTRO TO CONTEMP MATH QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 111 SECTION 005 INTRO TO CONTEMP MATH QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 111 SECTION 008 INTRO TO CONTEMP MATH QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 111 SECTION 009 INTRO TO CONTEMP MATH QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 111 SECTION 010 INTRO TO CONTEMP MATH QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 111 SECTION 012 INTRO TO CONTEMP MATH QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 111 SECTION 014 INTRO TO CONTEMP MATH QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 111 SECTION 016 INTRO TO CONTEMP MATH QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 111 SECTION 018 INTRO TO CONTEMP MATH QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 111 SECTION 019 INTRO TO CONTEMP MATH QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 001 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 002 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 003 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 004 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 005 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 006 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 007 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 008 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 009 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 010 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 011 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 012 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 013 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 014 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 015 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 016 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 017 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 018 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 019 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 020 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 021 CALCULUS I


QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 022 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 025 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 026 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 027 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 028 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 029 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 030 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 031 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 113 SECTION 032 CALCULUS I QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 123 SECTION 001 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 123 SECTION 002 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 123 SECTION 003 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 123 SECTION 004 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 123 SECTION 005 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 123 SECTION 006 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 123 SECTION 007 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 123 SECTION 008 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 123 SECTION 009 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 123 SECTION 010 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 123 SECTION 011 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 123 SECTION 012 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 123 SECTION 013 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 123 SECTION 014 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 123 SECTION 015 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 123 SECTION 016 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 123 SECTION 017 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 123 SECTION 018 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 123 SECTION 019 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 123 SECTION 020 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 123 SECTION 021 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 123 SECTION 022 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 123 SECTION 023 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 123 SECTION 024 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 137 SECTION 001 CALCULUS I (LIFE SCI) QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 137 SECTION 002 CALCULUS I (LIFE SCI) QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 137 SECTION 003 CALCULUS I (LIFE SCI) QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS MA 137 SECTION 004 CALCULUS I (LIFE SCI) QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS PHI 120 SECTION 001 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS PHI 120 SECTION 002 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC


QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS PHI 120 SECTION 003 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS PHI 120 SECTION 004 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS PHI 120 SECTION 005 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS PHI 120 SECTION 006 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS PHI 120 SECTION 007 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS PHI 120 SECTION 008 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS PHI 120 SECTION 009 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS PHI 120 SECTION 010 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS PHI 120 SECTION 011 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS PHI 120 SECTION 012 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS PHI 120 SECTION 013 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS PHI 120 SECTION 014 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS PHI 120 SECTION 015 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS PHI 120 SECTION 016 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS PHI 120 SECTION 017 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS PHI 120 SECTION 018 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS PHI 120 SECTION 019 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS PHI 120 SECTION 020 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS PHI 120 SECTION 021 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS PHI 120 SECTION 022 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS PHI 120 SECTION 023 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS PHI 120 SECTION 024 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS PHI 120 SECTION 025 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC QUANTITATIVE FOUNDATIONS PHI 120 SECTION 026 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING PSY 215 SECTION 001 EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING PSY 215 SECTION 002 EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING PSY 215 SECTION 003 EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING PSY 215 SECTION 004 EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING PSY 215 SECTION 005 EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING PSY 215 SECTION 006 EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING PSY 215 SECTION 007 EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING PSY 215 SECTION 008 EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING PSY 216 SECTION 001 APPS OF STATS IN PSYCHOL STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING PSY 216 SECTION 002 APPS OF STATS IN PSYCHOL STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING PSY 216 SECTION 003 APPS OF STATS IN PSYCHOL STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING PSY 216 SECTION 004 APPS OF STATS IN PSYCHOL STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING PSY 216 SECTION 005 APPS OF STATS IN PSYCHOL STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING PSY 216 SECTION 006 APPS OF STATS IN PSYCHOL STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING PSY 216 SECTION 007 APPS OF STATS IN PSYCHOL


STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING PSY 216 SECTION 008 APPS OF STATS IN PSYCHOL STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 001 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 002 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 003 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 004 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 005 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 006 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 007 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 008 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 009 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 010 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 011 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 012 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 013 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 014 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 015 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 016 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 017 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 018 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 019 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 020 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 021 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 022 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 023 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 024 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 025 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 026 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 027 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 028 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 029 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 030 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 031 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 032 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 033 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 034 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 035 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 036 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 037 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 038 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING


STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 039 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 040 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 041 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 042 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 043 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 044 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 045 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 046 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 047 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 048 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 049 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 050 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 051 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 401 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 402 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 403 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 404 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 405 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 406 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 407 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 408 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 409 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 410 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 411 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING STATISTICAL INFERENTIAL REASONING STA 210 SECTION 412 INTRO TO STATISTICAL REASONING

UK Core Quantitative Foundations Rubric

UK General Education Learning Outcome 3: Students will demonstrate an understanding of and ability to employ methods of quantitative reasoning. Outcomes and Assessment Framework: Students will (a) demonstrate how fundamental elements of mathematical, logical and statistical knowledge are applied to solve real-world problems; and (b) explain the sense in which an important source of uncertainty in many everyday decisions is addressed by statistical science, and appraise the efficacy of statistical arguments that are reported for general consumption. Curricular Framework Students will take one 3-hour course on the application of mathematical, logical and statistical methods, and one 3-hour course devoted to a conceptual and practical understanding of statistical inferential reasoning.

4 3 2 1 0 Demonstrate how fundamental elements of mathematical and/or logical knowledge are applied to solve real-world problems

Competently translates appropriate information into fundamental elements of mathematical or logical knowledge and provides an effective interpretation for the purpose of solving real-world problems.

Adequately translates available information into fundamental elements of mathematical or logical knowledge.

Translates available information, but resulting quantitative portrayal is somewhat appropriate or accurate.

The translation of available information is incomplete or inappropriate and results in an ineffective portrayal.

Does not attempt.

Appraise the efficacy of numerical/logical arguments that are reported for general consumption

Uses appropriate quantitative language and/or constructs in connection with a mathematical or logical argument for the purpose of evaluating efficacy.

Adequately uses quantitative language and/or constructions in connection with an argument. It may be presented in an ineffectual format or some parts of the explication may be uneven.

Uses appropriate quantitative language and/or constructions but these are insufficient to evaluate the efficacy of the argument.

Presents an argument that is relevant, but does not provide adequate quantitative justification.

Does not attempt.

Appendix B

UK Core Statistical Inferential Reasoning Rubric

UK General Education Learning Outcome 3: Students will demonstrate an understanding of and ability to employ methods of quantitative reasoning.

Outcomes and Assessment Framework: Students will (a) demonstrate how fundamental elements of mathematical, logical and statistical knowledge are applied to solve real-world problems; and (b) explain the sense in which an important source of uncertainty in many everyday decisions is addressed by statistical science, and appraise the efficacy of statistical arguments that are reported for general consumption. Curricular Framework Students will take one 3-hour course on the application of mathematical, logical and statistical methods, and one 3-hour course devoted to a conceptual and practical understanding of statistical inferential reasoning.

4 3 2 1 0 Demonstrate how fundamental elements of statistical knowledge are applied to solve real-world problems

Competently converts relevant information into fundamental elements of statistical knowledge and provides an effective portrayal for the purpose of solving real-world problems.

Provides an adequate conversion of information into fundamental elements of statistical knowledge.

Provides a conversion of information, but resulting statistical portrayal is only partially appropriate or accurate.

Conversion of information is incomplete or inappropriate and results in an ineffective portrayal.

Does not attempt the problem.

Explain the sense in which an important source of uncertainty in many everyday decisions is addressed by statistical science

Competently makes appropriate decisions and provides a thoughtful defense of the decision based on statistical science.

Makes appropriate decisions and provides a defense of the decision based on statistical science.

Makes a decision and provides a defense of the decision based on statistical science, but arguments are only partially appropriate or accurate.

Makes a decision and provides a defense of the decision, but arguments are inappropriate or inaccurate.


Appraise the efficacy of statistical arguments that are reported for general consumption

Uses statistical language and/or constructs in connection with an argument for the purpose of evaluating efficacy.

Uses statistical language and/or constructs in connection with an argument, though it may be presented in a less than completely effective format or some parts of the explication may be uneven.

Uses statistical language and/or constructs but does not effectively connect it to evaluating the efficacy of the argument.

Presents an argument that is pertinent, but does not provide adequate explicit statistical justification.


Appendix C – Evaluator Survey Results

Quantitative Foundations Initial Report



# Answer

Response %

1 1

0 0% 2 2

0 0% 3 3

0 0% 4 4

2 67% 5 5

1 33%

Total 3 100%

Statistic Value

Min Value 4 Max Value 5 Mean 4.33 Variance 0.33 Standard Deviation 0.58 Total Responses 3


# Answer

Response %

1


0 0%

2


1 33%


0 0%

4


2 67%


0 0%

Total 3 100%


Statistic Value



# Answer

Response %

1 Yes - go to Q4

0 0% 2 No - go to Q5

3 100%

Total 3 100%

Statistic Value



# Answer

Response %

1 0-1 hour

1 100% 2 1-2 hours

0 0% 3 More than 2 hours

0 0%

Total 1 100%

Statistic Value


5. Q5. On a scale of 1 – 5, with 1 being least effective and 5 being most effective, how would you rate the Foundations: Quantitative Reasoning outcome’s rubric?

# Answer

Response %

1 1

1 33% 2 2

0 0% 3 3

1 33% 4 4

1 33% 5 5

0 0%

Total 3 100%

Statistic Value



Text Response

The rubric overemphasises translation as an outcome.,especially in regards to the first outcome (demonstration outcome). There is a real difference between translation of mathematical/logical formulae and application of these formulae. In regards to the second outcome (appraise outcome), the phrase "for general consumption" is meaningless in relation to rubric. The rubric should better define how this is defined and assessed. I feel as though more than two criteria should be present for evaluation. Perhaps these two criteria would remain at the heart of the evaluation, but more questions with a more isolated scope would make deciding the overall quality easier.

Statistic Value

Total Responses 2


Text Response

This is difficult to say, since assignments from different classes (math, geology, philosophy) were so radically different. Generally, it appeared students tied their analyses to their own experiences fairly well. Some of the papers on fair divisions were well composed. I feel that the students followed directions very well, and in general fulfilled the requirements of the assignment that they were given.

Statistic Value

Total Responses 3


Text Response

Explain the basic concepts they are using more effectively. Students presumed too much and did not define the fundamental concepts they used. This made their work sloppy and also made evaluating their work difficult. Student really just need to improve the way that they explain their mathematical reasoning in simple short cogent statements. I feel as though the students did as well as they could have, given that many of the assignments didn't leave much room to go above and beyond.

Statistic Value

Total Responses 3


# Answer

Response %

1 1

0 0% 2 2

1 33% 3 3

2 67% 4 4

0 0% 5 5

0 0%

Total 3 100%

Statistic Value



Text Response

There should a radial box after each outcome to assess how well the artifact (not the student work) represented that outcome. This would greatly enhance the reliability of the two basic outcome assessments. I feel that a standard needs to be set to determine whether or not an assignment is appropriate for the evaluation. Instructors should be encouraged to ask more open ended questions as opposed to questions with a short correct answer. Also, I feel that the assignments could have been a touch more creative. Writing fiction in which the students have characters encounter problems that they have learned to solve in their respective class could be a fun way to satisfy the criteria of the rubric while having a little bit of fun as well.

Statistic Value

Total Responses 2

Statistical Inferential Reasoning Initial Report



# Answer

Response %

1 1

0 0% 2 2

0 0% 3 3

0 0% 4 4

2 100% 5 5

0 0%

Total 2 100%

Statistic Value



# Answer

Response %

1


0 0%

2


0 0%


2 100%

4


0 0%


0 0%

Total 2 100%


Statistic Value



# Answer

Response %

1 Yes - go to Q4

1 50% 2 No - go to Q5

1 50%

Total 2 100%

Statistic Value



# Answer

Response %

1 0-1 hour

1 100% 2 1-2 hours

0 0% 3 More than 2 hours

0 0%

Total 1 100%

Statistic Value


5. Q5. On a scale of 1 – 5, with 1 being least effective and 5 being most effective, how would you rate the SIR Quantitative Reasoning outcome’s rubric?

# Answer

Response %

1 1

0 0% 2 2

0 0% 3 3

1 50% 4 4

1 50% 5 5

0 0%

Total 2 100%

Statistic Value



Text Response

Needs to be more clear if we are evaluating the student's performance or the quality of the assignment.

Statistic Value

Total Responses 1


Text Response

Finding relevant articles or examples from the real world.

Statistic Value

Total Responses 1


Text Response

Being able to explain why a statistical desicion was made about a hypothesis.

Statistic Value

Total Responses 1


# Answer

Response %

1 1

0 0% 2 2

0 0% 3 3

2 100% 4 4

0 0% 5 5

0 0%

Total 2 100%

Statistic Value



Text Response

The student and faculty names need to be removed before we evaluate them.

Statistic Value

Total Responses 1

2011-2012 uk core assessment: inquiry - uky.edu inquiry a… · 1 inquiry 2011-2012 2011-2012 uk...

Documents